-
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 2024Poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) treatment for ovarian cancer (OC) are ever-changing. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) as maintenance therapy for newly-diagnosed and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer with mutational status: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) treatment for ovarian cancer (OC) are ever-changing. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and overall safety of available PARPi as maintenance therapy for BRCA mutation status in patients with newly diagnosed and platinum-sensitive recurrent (PSR) OC patients.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Relevant RCTs were systematically retrieved from PubMed and Embase until 31 May 2022. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) based on mutation status and adverse events (AEs) regardless of mutation were efficacy and safety endpoints.
RESULTS
In newly diagnosed BRCAm-OC patients, olaparib (HR: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25, 0.43) and other PARPis [niraparib (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.55), rucaparib (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.76) and veliparib (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.69)] had a statistically significant effect on PFS versus placebo. In BRCAm-PSROC patients, Olaparib exhibited significant benefit (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.88) for OS compared to other PARPis. In BRCAwt-PSR OC patients, Olaparib showed a favorable OS benefit than other PARPis (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.57,1.22). Overall, safety profile of all PARPis was acceptable.
CONCLUSION
All PARPis showed significant benefit, with olaparib showing greater benefit in newly diagnosed and PSR OC women.
REGISTRATION
CRD42021288932.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adenosine Diphosphate; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Ovarian Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerases; Ribose
PubMed: 38174379
DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2023.2298832 -
World Journal of Oncology Dec 2023The emergence of olaparib, a poly (adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC),...
BACKGROUND
The emergence of olaparib, a poly (adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), created a measurable clinical question on whether the agent positively influences the treatment outcomes and acceptable safety factors. The objective was to elaborate on the efficacy and safety of olaparib-added regimens in treating mCRPC patients as compared to the established guideline.
METHODS
The literature search was performed on several scientific databases, e.g., PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect, by applying the Boolean Term method. Statistical and risk of bias (RoB) analyses were calculated through RevMan 5.4.1. to investigate our outcomes, i.e., progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the reported adverse effects (AEs). These outcomes were presented in hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR).
RESULTS
Three trials consisting of 1,325 individuals with comparable baseline characteristics were investigated. The meta-analysis showed that introducing olaparib into the regimens significantly improved the PFS (HR 0.59 (0.48 - 0.73); P < 0.05), which disclosed even better outcomes among mutated homologous recombinant repair (HRR) and ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) gene (HR 0.43 (0.30 - 0.62); P < 0.05) in 95% confidence interval (CI). Furthermore, similar outcomes were observed in OS analysis (HR 0.81 (0.67 - 0.99); P < 0.05), despite olaparib group disclosed higher AEs rate with insignificant difference in mortality rate.
CONCLUSION
The efficacy and safety of olaparib-added regimens in mCRPC patients need to be explored more extensively in trials because they are beneficial, particularly among -mutated individuals.
PubMed: 38022404
DOI: 10.14740/wjon1685 -
Shell Versus Core Architecture and Biology of Thrombi in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review.Clinical and Applied... 2023The presence of an outer shell has been recently described as a common feature of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) thrombi. We performed a systematic review of the current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The presence of an outer shell has been recently described as a common feature of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) thrombi. We performed a systematic review of the current literature on shell genesis, structure, and clinical significance.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies reporting the composition and structure of AIS thrombi and clot analogs. Identified studies were added to Covidence software for primary screening. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts followed by full-text screening.
RESULTS
From 1290 identified studies, 10 were included in this review. Studies using histology/immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence described fibrin, platelets, von Willebrand factor, and neutrophil extracellular traps as the main components of the shell. Scanning electron microscopy demonstrated a dense, compact fibrin/platelet-rich shell, and a core rich in polyhedrocytes. Microfluidics studies identified highly activated P-selectin-positive platelets and fibrin forming the core while secondary agonists adenosine diphosphate and thromboxane, along with loosely packed P-selectin-negative platelets constituted the shell.
CONCLUSIONS
The composition, compaction, and integrity of the shell may impact thrombolysis and revascularization outcomes. The preponderance of studies supported this conclusion.
Topics: Humans; Ischemic Stroke; P-Selectin; Thrombosis; Fibrin; Biology; Stroke
PubMed: 37960892
DOI: 10.1177/10760296231213632 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2023Ovarian cancer affects the cells of the ovaries, and epithelial cancer is the most common type of malignant ovarian cancer. The homologous recombination repair pathway...
Homologous Recombination Deficiency Testing to Inform Patient Decisions About Niraparib Maintenance Therapy for High-Grade Serous or Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer affects the cells of the ovaries, and epithelial cancer is the most common type of malignant ovarian cancer. The homologous recombination repair pathway enables error-free repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Damage of key genes associated with this pathway leads to homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which results in unrepaired DNA and can lead to cancer. Tumours with HRD are believed to be sensitive to treatment with poly-adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as niraparib. We conducted a health technology assessment to evaluate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of HRD testing to inform patient decisions about the use of niraparib maintenance therapy for patients with high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer. We also evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with HRD or homologous recombination proficiency (HRP), the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing, the budget impact of publicly funding HRD testing, and patient preferences and values.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 5-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding HRD testing in people with ovarian cancer in Ontario. We performed a literature search for quantitative evidence of patient and provider preferences with respect to HRD testing and maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors. To contextualize the potential value of HRD testing, we spoke with people with ovarian cancer.
RESULTS
The clinical evidence review included two studies in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (one in patients with newly diagnosed advanced cases and one in patients with recurrent cancer). The studies evaluated niraparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy and used HRD testing to group patients according to HRD status. Compared to placebo, niraparib maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, and in tumours with HRD or HRP (GRADE: High), but the studies did not compare the results between the HRD and HRP groups. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the niraparib group. We identified no studies that evaluated the clinical utility of HRD testing.We conducted a primary economic evaluation to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing for people with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer in an Ontario setting. Our analysis used a 5-year time horizon. HRD testing (for all eligible people or only for people with wild type) resulted in a lower proportion of patients receiving niraparib maintenance therapy, leading to lower costs and fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The average total cost per patient was $131,375 for no HRD testing, $126,867 for HRD testing only in people with wild type, and $127,746 for HRD testing in all eligible people. The average total QALYs per patient were 2.087 for no HRD testing, 1.971 for HRD testing only in people with wild type, and 1.971 for HRD testing in all eligible people. Our budget impact analysis suggested that assuming a high uptake rate, publicly funding HRD testing for people with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer would lead to a total saving of $9.00 million (if HRD testing were funded for all) to $12.67 million (if HRD testing were funded for people with wild type) over the next 5 years. Publicly funding HRD testing for people with recurrent cancer would lead to a total saving of $16.31 million (if HRD testing were funded for all) to $21.67 million (if HRD testing were funded for people with wild type) over the next 5 years.We identified no studies that evaluated quantitative preferences for HRD testing. Based on two studies that evaluated patients and oncologists' preferences for maintenance therapy with a PARP inhibitor in the recurrent setting, a decrease in moderate to severe adverse events was more important for patients than an improvement in progression-free survival; however, improvement in progression-free survival was more important for oncologists. Both patients and oncologists accepted some trade-offs between efficacy and safety. The people with ovarian cancer we spoke with demonstrated a shared value for access to information, prevention of cancer recurrence, and overall survival with minimal adverse effects. This was consistent with findings from another survey in patients with ovarian cancer and at least one episode of recurrence, which suggest that patients prioritize treatment benefit over some treatment adverse events in the context of niraparib maintenance therapy. Interviewees also emphasized the importance of the patient-doctor partnership, access to local health care services, and patient education.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with newly diagnosed (advanced) or recurrent high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, niraparib maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival compared with no maintenance therapy in tumours with HRD or HRP (GRADE: High). Because we identified no studies on the clinical utility of HRD testing, we cannot comment on how it would affect patient decisions and clinical outcomes.Over a 5-year time horizon, HRD testing for people with wild type could save $4,509 per person and lead to a loss of 0.116 QALY. The findings of our economic analyses are dependent on assumptions about the use of niraparib following HRD testing. We estimate that publicly funding HRD testing would lead to a total saving of $9 million to $12.67 million for newly diagnosed cancer, and a total saving of $16.31 million to $21.67 million for recurrent cancer over 5 years, assuming the use of niraparib maintenance therapy would be reduced following HRD testing.Patients prioritized decreasing the risk of moderate to severe adverse events of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors over improving progression-free survival, and oncologists prioritized improving progression-free survival over decreasing the risk of moderate to severe adverse events. However, both patients and oncologists were open to accepting certain trade-offs between treatment efficacy and toxicity. The people we interviewed, who had lived experience with ovarian cancer and genetic testing, valued the potential clinical benefits of HRD testing for themselves and their family members. They emphasized patient education as an important consideration for public funding in Ontario.
Topics: Humans; Female; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Endometrioid; Ovarian Neoplasms
PubMed: 37637244
DOI: No ID Found -
BJU International Dec 2023To compare radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor combinations in first-line metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To compare radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving a combination of first-line poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) plus androgen receptor axis-targeted agents (ARAT) vs placebo/ARAT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis of all published Phase III randomised controlled trials using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane (inception until 6 June 2023). Published full-text manuscripts and conference abstracts were inclusion eligible. Study selection/data extraction were independently performed by two authors. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool was used, and certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risks, with corresponding confidence intervals (CIs), were generated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Three trials were identified: PROpel, MAGNITUDE, and TALAPRO-2. Compared to placebo/ARAT, the PARPi/ARAT combination was associated with a 35% rPFS improvement in the overall cohort (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56-0.76), with 68%, 45%, and 26% improvements in the BReast CAncer gene 1/gene 2 (BRCA1/2)-mutated (BRCA1/2m; P < 0.001), homologous recombination repair-mutated (HRRm; P < 0.001), and non-HRRm cohorts (P = 0.003), respectively. OS data maturity ranged from 31% to 48%, with overall cohort OS data unavailable from MAGNITUDE. The PROpel/TALAPRO-2 pooled analysis demonstrated a 16% OS improvement in the overall cohort (HR 0.84, 95 CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.02). OS in the HRRm (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95) and the BRCA1/2m cohorts (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.18-1.56) were improved, with a higher effect magnitude compared to the overall cohort. This combination was associated with a 45% relative risk increase in Grade ≥3 TEAEs, including 6.22-fold for Grade ≥3 anaemia (31.9% vs 4.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of PARPi to ARAT in the first-line mCRPC setting is associated with rPFS benefits across subgroups, with the greatest magnitude of benefit in BRCA1/2m patients. OS benefits remain inconsistent irrespective of HRRm status, with significant increases in Grade ≥3 TEAEs, particularly anaemia. Currently, we suggest this combined approach be selectively offered to HRRm patients, preferentially BRCA1/2m.
Topics: Male; Humans; BRCA1 Protein; Ribose; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; BRCA2 Protein; Anemia; Adenosine Diphosphate
PubMed: 37461140
DOI: 10.1111/bju.16130 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2023The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global health concern. Three years... (Review)
Review
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global health concern. Three years since its origin, despite the approval of vaccines and specific treatments against this new coronavirus, there are still high rates of infection, hospitalization, and mortality in some countries. COVID-19 is characterised by a high inflammatory state and coagulation disturbances that may be linked to purinergic signalling molecules such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), adenosine (ADO), and purinergic receptors (P1 and P2). These nucleotides/nucleosides play important roles in cellular processes, such as immunomodulation, blood clot formation, and vasodilation, which are affected during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, drugs targeting this purinergic pathway, currently used for other pathologies, are being evaluated in preclinical and clinical trials for COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the potential of these drugs to control the release, degradation, and reuptake of these extracellular nucleotides and nucleosides to treat COVID-19. Drugs targeting the P1 receptors could have therapeutic efficacy due to their capacity to modulate the cytokine storm and the immune response. Those acting in P2X7, which is linked to NLRP3 inflammasome activation, are also valuable candidates as they can reduce the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, according to the available preclinical and clinical data, the most promising medications to be used for COVID-19 treatment are those that modulate platelets behaviour and blood coagulation factors, mainly through the P2Y12 receptor.
Topics: Humans; Nucleosides; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Adenosine Triphosphate; Adenosine Diphosphate; Receptors, Purinergic
PubMed: 37175571
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24097865 -
BMC Cancer Jan 2023To analyze the incidence and risk of hypertension associated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in cancer patients and provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the incidence and risk of hypertension associated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in cancer patients and provide reference for clinicians.
METHODS
We used R software to conduct a meta-analysis of phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCT) on PARP inhibitors for cancer treatment published in PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to July 29th, 2022.
RESULTS
We included 32 RCTs with 10,654 participants for this meta-analysis. For total PARP inhibitors, the incidence and risk ratio of all-grade hypertension were 12% and 1.22 (95% CI: 0.91-1.65, P = 0.19, I = 81%), and the incidence and risk ratio of grade 3-4 hypertension were 4% and 1.24 (95% CI: 0.74-2.08, P = 0.42, I = 68%). Compared with the control group, the niraparib group, olaparib 800 mg/day group, and olaparib plus cediranib group increased the risk of any grade and grade 3-4 hypertension, while the veliparib group and rucaparib group did not increase the risk of any grade and grade 3-4 hypertension, and olaparib 200 mg-600 mg/day group (exclude olaparib plus cediranib regime) reduced the risk of any grade and grade 3-4 hypertension.
CONCLUSION
Olaparib 200-600 mg/day (excluding olaparib plus cediranib regimen) may be the most suitable PARP inhibitor for cancer patients with high risk of hypertension, followed by veliparib and rucaparib. Niraparib, olaparib 800 mg/day and olaparib combined with cediranib may increase the risk of developing hypertension in cancer patients, clinicians should strengthen the monitoring of blood pressure in cancer patients and give medication in severe cases.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Hypertension; Incidence; Phthalazines; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36717798
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-10571-5 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine... Sep 2022Ticagrelor and clopidogrel are antiplatelet drugs that act by binding to the adenosine diphosphate P2Y12 receptor. Previous studies have compared between them regarding...
BACKGROUND
Ticagrelor and clopidogrel are antiplatelet drugs that act by binding to the adenosine diphosphate P2Y12 receptor. Previous studies have compared between them regarding the endothelial function effect.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence comparing the efficacy of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in improving endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS
In August 2021, the Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane library were searched systematically for eligible trials. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in improving endothelial function in patients with CAD.
RESULTS
Seven trials (n = 511) were included in our systematic review. Ticagrelor resulted in a greater elevation of the level of progenitor cells CD34+ KDR+ and CD34+ 133+ (P = 0.036 and P = 0.019, respectively), with a lower rate of endothelial cell apoptosis rate (P < 0.001). Moreover, ticagrelor showed superiority regarding nitric oxide, radical oxygen species, and soluble P-selectin levels (P = 0.03, P = 0.02, and P = 0.019, respectively). Flow-mediated dilation findings differed between the studies (P = 0.004 vs. P = 0.39).
CONCLUSION
Ticagrelor appears to exert an additional improvement in endothelial function compared with clopidogrel in patients with coronary heart disease.
Topics: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Clopidogrel; Coronary Artery Disease; Humans; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists; Ticagrelor; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35994706
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001345 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Sep 2022To update the ASCO Biomarkers to Guide Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) guideline.
PURPOSE
To update the ASCO Biomarkers to Guide Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) guideline.
METHODS
An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies from January 2015 to January 2022.
RESULTS
The search identified 19 studies informing the evidence base.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Candidates for a regimen with a phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor and hormonal therapy should undergo testing for mutations using next-generation sequencing of tumor tissue or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma to determine eligibility for alpelisib plus fulvestrant. If no mutation is found in ctDNA, testing in tumor tissue, if available, should be used. Patients who are candidates for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy should undergo testing for germline and pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations to determine eligibility for a PARP inhibitor. There is insufficient evidence for or against testing for a germline pathogenic variant to determine eligibility for PARP inhibitor therapy in the metastatic setting. Candidates for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should undergo testing for expression of programmed cell death ligand-1 in the tumor and immune cells to determine eligibility for treatment with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Candidates for an immune checkpoint inhibitor should also undergo testing for deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high to determine eligibility for dostarlimab-gxly or pembrolizumab, as well as testing for tumor mutational burden. Clinicians may test for fusions to determine eligibility for TRK inhibitors. There are insufficient data to recommend routine testing of tumors for mutations, for homologous recombination deficiency, or for TROP2 expression to guide MBC therapy selection. There are insufficient data to recommend routine use of ctDNA or circulating tumor cells to monitor response to therapy among patients with MBC.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.
Topics: Adenosine Diphosphate; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; Circulating Tumor DNA; Class I Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases; Female; Fulvestrant; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Ligands; Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Ribose
PubMed: 35759724
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.01063 -
Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and... Sep 2022
Corrigendum to "correlation of poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase expression and prognosis in ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis" [J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2022;51(4): 102344. Doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2022.102344].
PubMed: 35717833
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2022.102427